Here is a blog written by a someone claiming to be an eye witness. It is scary to imagine being put in the position of stopping police in the heat on an attack like that, and short of finding a machine gun, you would probably just die as well. We have to be able to trust police because we give them so much power. An abuse like this isn't just the crime, but the betrayal of public trust.

If you saw a cop beating a man to death, would you try to stop him? Citizens at this incident just taped it and asked for justice later. If someone shot at the cops to get them to stop, wouldn't that be a drama?

Lots of loons claim utterly bogus things on the net and there are the dumbasses that buy into it because it fits their ignorant bias.

GM, that is always a major problem with any medium of communication. Many people are so lazy, that they simply believe whatever it is that they are told and rarely bother to verify the source or validity of what it is that they are ingesting mentally.

I thought I posted something about this subject before, but I can't find it. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Police stepped out of line.

"Ramos faces a maximum sentence of 15 years to life if convicted, authorities said. Cicinelli, who is 39 years old and a 12-year Fullerton police veteran, faces a maximum of four years in prison if convicted."

I thought I posted something about this subject before, but I can't find it. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Police stepped out of line.

"Ramos faces a maximum sentence of 15 years to life if convicted, authorities said. Cicinelli, who is 39 years old and a 12-year Fullerton police veteran, faces a maximum of four years in prison if convicted."

Police trainers must be aware of potential deaths from compressional asphyxia. Officers must be taught to avoid putting their body weight on a confined person as soon as active resistance has ended or the person has been adequately restrained from causing harm to himself or others. Dr. Reay’s article in the May, 1996 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin emphasized:“Instructors must stress vigilance in monitoring the subject’s condition. The process of hypoxia is insidious, and subjects might not exhibit any clear symptoms before they simply stop breathing. Generally, it takes several minutes for significant hypoxia to occur, but it can happen more quickly if the subject has been violently active and is already out of breath. If the subject experiences extreme difficulty breathing or stops breathing altogether, officers must take steps to resuscitate the subject and obtain medical care immediately.”

Deaths will still occur because of substance abuse, or pre-existing coronary or respiratory conditions. But if a dashboard video camera shows officers putting their weight on a person shortly before he stops breathing, a civil suit and a disciplinary investigation are likely to follow. The outcome of both might be adversely influenced by media bias, political posturing, or racial overtones.

Caution – from a policy and training perspective, officers are admonished to cease aggressively restraining persons who appear to have abandoned their resistance. As a practical matter, due to the influence of abused substances or other reasons, people sometimes resist, submit, and then renew their resistance with increased vigor. “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over” is more than a cute phrase.

Although he moved between cities, Kelly Thomas would often show up unannounced at his mother’s and grandparents’ home to shower, eat, get cleaned up, and then he’d disappear again. If it was raining, he would sleep in the car parked in their driveway, Cathy Thomas said.

A 2009 Fullerton Police booking photo.

In December 2010, Kelly Thomas had been staying at their house for a few months. At the direction of the Placentia Police Department, Cathy Thomas filed a restraining order against her son so that he would be taken into custody for 72 hours. They told her it was the only way to get him help. Then, options for helping him could be determined, but the police never picked him up that day, Cathy Thomas said.

“It was a tough love move, I didn’t know what else to do. He was living on my parents’ porch so I was trying to get him help again,” she said. “The police did not pick him up that day. Instead they say he was old enough to be on his own and that he could make his own decisions, but I knew he needed help because he was not in his right mind. They said he had to become violent, but he was never violent.”

Kelly Thomas remained on the streets, becoming a fixture on the streets of Downtown Fullerton. He received citations for illegal camping and trespassing, Ron Thomas said, but Fullerton residents and business owners knew him, and his death saddened and angered many.

For some, though, Kelly Thomas’s presence downtown was a problem. “Most of my staff was very scared and intimidated by him. They were reluctant to ask him to move along,” said Jeremy Popoff, owner of the Slidebar Rock-N-Roll Kitchen. “Two or three days before [the arrest] he was bumming cigarettes, and the manager said to him ‘Kelly, you can’t do that here, you gotta move on.’ And Kelly screamed back at him ‘Don’t call me by my first name!’ ”

Hmmm the District Attorney seems to disagree.... "The actions of Ramos "were reckless and created a high risk of death and great bodily injury," District Attorney Tony Rackauckas told reporters."

So did the Judge who set bail at $1,000.000 dollars!

"Ramos was being held Wednesday after Orange County Superior Court Judge Erick L. Larsh set his bail at $1 million."

Yes, after all the protests and outcry from the leech community and sheltered douchbags like you. What would you do if confronted by a street person like Kelly Thomas? Most likely shove your wife in front of you and run.

Ron Thomas said his son was diagnosed with mental illness after he was arrested for a minor violation. He went to a live in facility that monitored his medication.

He did well when he was on his medication and briefly held jobs at a gas station and a printing facility, his father said.

But when he was feeling well, Thomas would stop taking his drugs and soon was back on the streets and in and out of jail for violations that ranged from public urination to assault with a deadly weapon.

"Surveillance video taken on an Orange County Transportation Authority bus showed passengers describing the alleged assault.

"They beat him up and then all the cops came and they hogtied him and he was like, 'Please God, Please Dad!'" said one witness."

And....

"Where were his rights? Listen to my son beg those officers, 'Please, please, God, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.' And the last words of his life, 'Dad! Dad!' I want you to hear that for the rest of your life like I will."

Police are NOT above the law...

Obviously the District Attorney agrees. Officer Ramos is charged with 2nd Degree Murder. If convicted, Officer Ramos will serve 15 years to LIFE in Prison.

Even in boxing/football/martial arts or any other competition where there is an element of physical force, serious injury and death can result. Well trained and conditioned in a safe environment with a referee and protective equipment and no desire to kill can still result in bad things happening.

Real life violence doesn't have those safeguards. No one is going to be "friends at the end of the day" and street people don't care what your IQ is or if you get to leave with it.

FULLERTON – The father of a man who died after a violent confrontation with Fullerton police said Saturday that he has been offered $900,000 to settle any civil claims against the city.

Ron Thomas' 37-year-old son Kelly Thomas, who was homeless and schizophrenic, died July 10, five days after clashing with police investigating reports of attempted car burglary. An autopsy failed to determine a cause of death, and further tests are being conducted.

Controversy surrounding the circumstances is building, and more than 200 people turned out Saturday to demonstrate at the Fullerton police station. About the same number participated in a candlelight vigil on the City Hall lawn in the evening.

The FBI and the Orange County District Attorney are investigating the death, and separately, an attorney representing the city on Friday offered $900,000 to resolve the civil side of the case, Ron Thomas said.

Thomas first disclosed the possible six-figure deal on the Jon and Ken Show at KFI-AM 640. Neither city officials nor the attorney could be reached for comment, and the offer could not be confirmed.

Ron Thomas said he is considering accepting the payment, and that the money would primarily go to a foundation set up in Kelly Thomas' name to assist the homeless. Some money would go to Kelly Thomas' brother and sister and their children, Ron Thomas said.

"I'm willing to listen, but I'm not signing anything at this time," Ron Thomas said.

As for the inquiries being conducted, Thomas said he has "always thought that the District Attorney would do a fair investigation."

Amateur video said to have captured the incident includes audio of Kelly Thomas screaming and being hit repeatedly with a stun gun.

Sgt. Andrew Goodrich, Fullerton police spokesman, said his department "wants this transparent investigation to take place" and that it is "fully cooperating."

One of the six officers involved in the July 5 incident is on administrative leave, and the other five have been temporarily reassigned away from front-line patrol.

Kelly Thomas had a long list of run-ins with police. His convictions were mostly misdemeanors and infractions but include felony assault with a deadly weapon.

**Let's see, Kelly Thomas had a restraining order placed on him by his family, but now they care.

Sounds like Officer Ramos is a real class act. Wow he doesn't cower does he? Maybe the blue helps? And the other Officers? And the gun? Yep, Officer Ramos is pretty brave.Let's see how brave he is in jail? And prison if he is convicted.

And unlike any other private citizen, Officer Ramos will be given a first class defense; not some overworked public defender. All at the Tax Payer's Expense. I thought we were trying to cut back?Maybe Officer Ramos should pay for his own defense like everyone else?

Then again, you are right; I'ld probably cower at a safe distance if Officer Ramos was around. "To Protect and To Serve" Kinda scary

The District Attorney found Officer Ramos crime so bad (and I'm sure he IS privy to the investigation) that he charged Officer Ramos with 2nd Degree MURDER.

The Orange County coroner listed the manner of death as a homicide and the cause of death to be "anoxic encephalopathy with acute bronchopneumonia," asphyxia caused by "mechanical chest compression with blunt cranial-facial injuries during physical altercation with law enforcement," prosecutors said.

Without a clear understanding all the elements, there is no way to give an informed decision as to if this was a lawful use of force or not. The media, as usual is pushing it's narrative rather than delivering unbiased facts.

I love ya man and I know you and JDN sometimes bump heads strongly, but you know that we seek to avoid this kind of personal commentary around here.

Please do better on this.

Thank you,Marc===============

Returning now to the merits of the conversation, as usual GM does a very good job of bringing out the LEO POV. I know I certainly have seen indiginant news reports on TV showing LEO behavior with great indignation that at earlier points in my life I would have shared but now look at and shout back at the Barbie & Ken doll teleprompter readers about what clueless morons they are (as inwardly I realize what a moron I had been earlier in my life ).

That said, the point remains that there ARE times police get out of line, sometimes quite a bit out of line. Given the charges being brought here, it seems reasonable to me to think that perhaps this may have been such a case; even while keeping in mind that political charges are not unknown either.

I remember when UFC first started and the media hype was about "human cockfighting" and how horrible and evil it was. Good thing stickfighting was under their radar at that time? Can you imagine how things could have spun out if a gathering resulted in a critical injury or death at that time?

DA's are elected. What are the top three priorities of any politician? To get re-elected, to get re-elected and to get re-elected.

It's really tiresome when people who have never done the job and could never do the job and would be the first to call law enforcement for anything sit in judgement of officers that may well have done nothing wrong.

I guess Fullerton PD should get some scrutiny and protests, given the 200 Mexicans that have died in the past few years because of their actions.

Oh wait, that's the ATF and everyone else hooked into "Gunwalker/Fast and Furious' with the paper trail that leads to Holder and Obama.

Hmmmm....

Where are the lefty protesters? Where are the professional "Razaists"? Where is the MSM with the profiles of the murdered Mexicans, the sobbing family members and the sad instrumental music playing in the background?

Does Fullerton PD have lots of fatal uses of force/Officer involved shootings?

Nice rhetorical flourishes and not without merit, but it seems like you have a hard time acknowledging that sometimes an LEO can be a real dick and here I AM speaking from personal experience. Not that I am going to discuss the details-- you will have to take my word for it or not-- I have had an LEO commit direct and deliberate perjury in an effort to put me in prison. In a separate matter WHILE ALL OF US WERE COMPLETELY COOPERATING I have been part of a group that was slammed up against the wall. I confess it crosses my mind to note that except for me all of us were black and the police were white.

If I saw evidence that said the FPD cops in question met beforehand and said "Hey, let's kill a homeless person tonight", it would be a different story. If I saw evidence that they acted with a depraved indifference towards the decedent, that's again a different story.

Thus far we have media hype and uninformed speculation.

I'll point out that I personally have ended two law enforcement officer's careers for domestic violence and slugged it out with a corrupt police administration, resulting in an early retirement for a chief of police and made some serious political enemies within a powerful political entity.

I have bled on my uniform more than a few times and put my life and career on the line to do the right thing more than a few times and gotten not much in the way of reward and recognition for doing so. Not that my intention was to seek a reward in this life, but just pointing out that fighting the good fight doesn't mean you get the Hollywood ending.

My point being:

Most people in law enforcement are good people, trying to do the right thing under very difficult circumstances and accordingly deserve the benefit of the doubt. Wait for a definitive investigation and due process to determined what happened in this case and the others that will occur in the future.

Should I preface every posting on law enforcement with a disclaimer stating there are indeed bad cops? Does someone confronting an anti-semite have to initially state that indeed there are some bad Jews before condemning the protocals of the elders of Zion?

I address each point on it's merits. A lot of criticism is unwarranted and based on misinformation. A lot of people love to bash cops. People that could not and would not walk in those shoes. People who have no clue as to the suffering and sacrifice involved in the job.

OTOH sometimes you read like you aren't willing to consider the possibility that an officer misbehaved.

Anyway, moving along, here's this-- it's on point to our discussion but it is from this morning's Left Angeles Times, and is written as to be expected.==========

By Robert Faturechi, Los Angeles Times

September 23, 2011Almost half the people shot at by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies after reaching toward their waistbands turned out to be unarmed, according to a study released Thursday.

"Waistband shootings" are particularly controversial because the justification for the shootings can conceivably be fabricated after the fact, according to the county monitor's report, which was commissioned by the county Board of Supervisors and which analyzed six years of shooting data. The monitor was careful to point out that the report wasn't indicating that deputies were being dishonest, simply that those shootings left the department vulnerable to criticism.

Interactive: Officer-involved killings since 2007

Merrick Bobb, who was hired as a special counsel to county supervisors after a 1992 report exposed serious problems in the department, also found an increase in shootings in which deputies didn't see an actual gun before firing. In those cases, the suspects may have had a weapon but never brandished it.

Those shootings jumped from nine in 2009 to 15 last year, according to the report. Last year also saw the highest proportion of people shot by deputies who turned out to be unarmed altogether.

The Sheriff's Department already requires its patrol deputies to do scenario-based shooting training every two years. According to the report, though, almost a third of the deputies who shot at people before seeing an actual gun failed to meet that training requirement.

According to the report, the number of officer-involved shootings generally correlates with the criminal homicide rate. But in the last two years, as the homicide rate in Los Angeles County has fallen, the number of Sheriff's Department shootings has risen.

In one case, deputies came across a narcotics suspect sitting in his car outside his house. When the 35-year-old man saw the deputies, he appeared to reach under his seat. One of the deputies thought he saw a gun, covered by a piece of cloth. The man then sat up, holding the object to his chest, prompting the deputy to shoot him. The man was killed but no drugs or weapons were found, only a pair of jeans. The county eventually paid $750,000 to the victim's family.

The analysis also found that 61% of suspects who were shot at by deputies were Latino, 29% black and 10% white. Even compared to Sheriff's Department arrest rates, Latinos and blacks are overrepresented, the study concluded.

In shootings in which deputies shot at a suspect before seeing an actual gun, all but two of the suspects were black or Latino.

The report expressed "deep concerns" specifically about the sheriff's Century Station, which is responsible for one of the rougher swaths of the department's jurisdiction, spanning Lynwood and unincorporated areas of Florence, Firestone, Walnut Park, Willowbrook and Athens Park.

Over the last 15 years, that station's deputies have fired their guns the most frequently, almost twice as often as those at any other station. More than a quarter of the sheriff's deputies who have been involved in multiple shootings work at Century, according to the report, even though the station represents only 8% of the department's sworn patrol force.

Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said that the department takes the report seriously and that Sheriff Lee Baca is studying its findings with his executive staff.

Whitmore said that the training issue raised in the report is "a real one" but that a massive budget cut and subsequent overtime cuts are partly to blame.

The racial breakdown of suspects in deputy shootings, he said, also has the potential for misinterpretation.

"Even Merrick Bobb says … it will be a serious error for anyone to conclude from this report that LASD deputies intentionally shot any individual because that person was black or Latino. The conclusion that this is raced-based is erroneous and shouldn't even be hinted at."

The concerns the monitor raised with the Century station, Whitmore said, can be attributed to the highly concentrated, gang-ridden neighborhoods that deputies must patrol.

"These communities include some of the most volatile in the county," Whitmore said.

Among the report's other findings:

• Deputies firing their guns off duty are more likely to be fresh out of the academy. More than half of off-duty shootings involved deputies with less than three years on the job.

• Deputies shooting at animals spiked recently, with 62 last year, more than double the number several years before.

• All deputies involved in multiple shootings in recent years were men.

Yeah, and I can run the 100 meter dash in 9.6 seconds too. Yes, it has been done, but......

Although I have always been impressed with those fast draw competitions (I've gone to watch a couple of times), it's not as easy as it looks. Nor is running a sub 10.0 100 meter dash.

Further, what's impressive is the ability to draw fast AND hit the target.

The troubling thing in the article was;

"Almost half the people shot at by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies after reaching toward their waistbands turned out to be unarmed, according to a study released Thursday."

Basically they shot an unarmed man. They weren't in immediate danger for their life. If you and I did that, we would be on trial for murder.

That said, as GM has succinctly pointed out, being a police officer is NOT an easy job. Nor are these particular officers patrolling Beverly Hills.

Frankly, I think (GM can rightfully correct me; this is just my guess) the adrenalin and fear (police are human too) take over and sh#t happens.. Given that they "thought" the bad guy was going for a gun, well..... and if they truly were going for a gun.... better him than me...

To make another point;

"More than half of off-duty shootings involved deputies with less than three years on the job."

I think experience, in that split second, enables you to make the right choice. But it's not easy.

More training? More??? No one wants to kill an "innocent" man.

Frankly, as a generalization, without knowing the details, IMHO these shootings, while truly unfortunate and sad, are understandable. The Officer did in fact, albeit incorrectly, fear for his life.

My problem with the Thomas situation is that he had no weapon. Officer Ramos didn't even think it was necessary to pat him down. Instead, with other Officers nearly,Officer Ramos "put on Latex gloves", And then, Officer Ramos said clearly, ""Now see my fists? They're getting ready to 'F' you up."

"Almost half the people shot at by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies after reaching toward their waistbands turned out to be unarmed, according to a study released Thursday."

Basically they shot an unarmed man. They weren't in immediate danger for their life. If you and I did that, we would be on trial for murder.

**The courts use the standard of what you reasonably believe at the moment in time when you make the decision to use force. This standard does apply to both LEOs and armed citizens. Say a badguy uses a replica handgun to carjack a citizen and the citizen instead/shoots/stabs/runs over the badguy. It's lawful if the citizen reasonably believes it was a deadly weapon as part of ability/opportunity/jeopardy.

That said, as GM has succinctly pointed out, being a police officer is NOT an easy job. Nor are these particular officers patrolling Beverly Hills.

Frankly, I think (GM can rightfully correct me; this is just my guess) the adrenalin and fear (police are human too) take over and sh#t happens.. Given that they "thought" the bad guy was going for a gun, well..... and if they truly were going for a gun.... better him than me...

**Again, it's a matter of "reasonableness" based on the officer's perceptions and the totality of the circumstances. The article points out how the majority of the shootings are by deputies with 3 or less years on the job. From memory, the majority of officers killed by suspects typically have 5 or more years on the job. So, after 5 years, the lessons from the academy fade and complacency develops. Complacency kills.

My problem with the Thomas situation is that he had no weapon. Officer Ramos didn't even think it was necessary to pat him down. Instead, with other Officers nearly,Officer Ramos "put on Latex gloves",

**These days, if you have to touch anyone, especially a street person, you better glove up when you have a chance.

**Do you think Thomas was just standing there quietly, like a meek little lamb? I doubt it. It looks like Thomas was a "frequent flyer" and I'm guessing that part of Fullerton isn't Rodeo Drive-like. Sometimes one must alter one's presentation to the audience. Sometimes clearly explaining that resistance will result in force, using terminology understood by the subject results in the force not having to be used.

"Almost half the people shot at by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies after reaching toward their waistbands turned out to be unarmed, according to a study released Thursday."

Basically they shot an unarmed man. They weren't in immediate danger for their life. If you and I did that, we would be on trial for murder.

**The courts use the standard of what you reasonably believe at the moment in time when you make the decision to use force. This standard does apply to both LEOs and armed citizens. Say a badguy uses a replica handgun to carjack a citizen and the citizen instead/shoots/stabs/runs over the badguy. It's lawful if the citizen reasonably believes it was a deadly weapon as part of ability/opportunity/jeopardy.

That said, as GM has succinctly pointed out, being a police officer is NOT an easy job. Nor are these particular officers patrolling Beverly Hills.

Frankly, I think (GM can rightfully correct me; this is just my guess) the adrenalin and fear (police are human too) take over and sh#t happens.. Given that they "thought" the bad guy was going for a gun, well..... and if they truly were going for a gun.... better him than me...

**Again, it's a matter of "reasonableness" based on the officer's perceptions and the totality of the circumstances. The article points out how the majority of the shootings are by deputies with 3 or less years on the job. From memory, the majority of officers killed by suspects typically have 5 or more years on the job. So, after 5 years, the lessons from the academy fade and complacency develops. Complacency kills.

"a standard of what you believe is reasonable". Yes, if a bad guy pulled out a toy gun and I couldn't tell the difference, and therefore reasonably believed my life was in danger, I have a pretty good defense. But in most of the instances, they didn't pull out a toy gun, they merely went to their waist, pulling out nothing except maybe their d$%^. I think in most states if I shot a unarmed man who had not hit or attacked me, and my defense was, well, "he was going for his waist" I would be locked up as a private citizen for a long time.... Police get off, and maybe rightfully so.

As for killed on the job, of course "the majority of officers killed by suspects typically have 5 or more years on the job." the average LAPD Officer has 12 years on the job. There are more officers by far with over 5 years, therefore more of them will die. I"m not sure it can be proven that it has a lot to do with complacency.

As for Ramos, his actions were so egregious in my opinion that he should be locked up for a long time. Did you read what he did? So I say, Take away his gun, his stick, and blue uniform and put him in a common room with other criminals. Then let's see how tough he is. He deserves whatever he gets. And it probably won't be much; in the end, it's rare that a police officer is convicted of a crime. Too bad.

I've gone on ride alongs before. Most, by far the majority of police do an outstanding job. But there are a few bad apples that need to be culled out. Everyone is better off.

"a standard of what you believe is reasonable". Yes, if a bad guy pulled out a toy gun and I couldn't tell the difference, and therefore reasonably believed my life was in danger, I have a pretty good defense. But in most of the instances, they didn't pull out a toy gun, they merely went to their waist, pulling out nothing except maybe their d$%^. I think in most states if I shot a unarmed man who had not hit or attacked me, and my defense was, well, "he was going for his waist" I would be locked up as a private citizen for a long time.... Police get off, and maybe rightfully so.

Bobby: Let’s move on. We’ve defined a seizure. We said that if a plaintiff sues a defendant for using excessive force, the issue in the case is whether the force was objectively reasonable. That’s from the Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor. The Supreme Court told us that a seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be objectively reasonable. That is the key to the Fourth Amendment -- reasonableness. Tim: Did the Court say we had to be perfect, Bobby?Bobby: No; we know better than that. None of us are perfect. The force must be reasonable. The Court acknowledged that seizures are made under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. The Court will not require us to be perfect; just reasonable.Tim: And just how is a court supposed to make that determination?Bobby: By examining the totality of the facts and circumstances. If a plaintiff sues a defendant police officer for excessive force, the court must look at all the facts. It will examine the facts presented by the plaintiff. It will consider the facts presented by the defendant officer. The issue will be whether based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, the force was reasonable. Tim: The court recognized that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. So, proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. Bobby, you said objective reasonableness. Explain that.Bobby: The court looks at the facts through the eyes of an objectively reasonable officer. Could a reasonable officer find that the force used was reasonable, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. An objective standard is based on fact. Tim: I think it’s important to remember our roles in the courtroom. Cops state the facts. Judges make conclusions, based on those facts. The court doesn’t care that the police officer believed that “the suspect was dangerous” or that “the officer felt his life was in danger.” Those are mere conclusions. What are the facts that would allow the judge to come to those conclusions? Bobby: The court looks at the totality of the facts and circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. It examines the facts the officer had up until the moment of the seizure. What facts justified the initial stop? What facts justified handcuffing? Spraying the suspect with OC? What facts justified pulling the trigger? We ask whether each of those seizures was reasonable. The court examines the facts that were available to the officer. The court doesn’t judge the officer based on 20/20 hindsight.Tim: What’s 20/20 hindsight, Bobby? Tell us a little about that.Bobby: Courts don’t look at the facts that the officer learns later. The facts might be that the officer shot a robbery suspect after the suspect pulled a pistol from his pocket and pointed it at the officer. It’s not relevant that the officer later learned that the handgun was unloaded – or a toy. Tim: When a LEO uses force, it’s typically done under situations that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Bobby: And the Supreme Court told the lower courts to take THAT into consideration. In determining the reasonableness of force, courts must allow for the fact that law enforcement officers are often forced to make split-second decisions – and like Tim said -- under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Tim: What else does a court take into account in determining the reasonableness of force?Bobby: In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court gave us four major factors that may be used in determining what level of force is justified in a use of force encounter. We sometimes refer to them as the Graham factors.

Those factors are:• The severity of the crime• Whether the suspect is an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others• Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest• And whether the suspect is evading arrest by flightLater, after Graham v. Connor, the courts added additional factors to determine whether the force used in a particular situation was reasonable. These additional factors included such things as:• The number of suspects and officers involved.• The size, age, and condition of the officer and suspect• The duration of the action• Previous violent history of the suspect, known by the officer at the time• The suspect’s mental or psychiatric history, known by the officer at the time• The use of alcohol or drugs by the suspect• The presence of innocent bystanders• The availability of other weapons (chemical sprays, batons, tasers)Tim: Let’s look at Graham v. Connor. Bobby and I are going to change some of the facts so that you can better understand how a court might determine whether the force is reasonable. You be the judge. Consider the facts we give you. First, listen to Mr. Graham’s side of the story as I tell it. Then listen to Officer Conner. I’ll be Mr. Graham. I’m a diabetic. One day I felt the onset of an insulin reaction, so I called my friend Berry and asked Berry to take me to a convenience store to buy some OJ. The OJ counteracts the insulin reaction. Berry came over and we sped off to a convenience store. Once at the store, I jumped out and ran inside. But, the line was too long. I couldn’t wait. So I ran back outside, jumped in Berry’s car, and we sped off for a friend’s house.Then a police car pulled us over. The officer felt that we might have robbed or stole something from the convenience store. Berry tried to explain my condition; but the officer wouldn’t listen. The officer said he was going to hold me until backup could go back to the convenience store and determine whether a crime had been committed.I guess I panicked. I got out of the car and ran around it. The next thing I knew I was being handcuffed and thrown into a police car. I got hurt. I sustained a broken bone in my foot, cuts on my wrists, bruised forehead, and a persistent ringing in my ears. Bobby: Don’t make up your mind, yet. Now look at the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. Connor saw Graham run into the convenience store and rush back out. Police reports stated that there had been several robberies and shoplifting incidents in convenience stores in the area over the past three months. Based on those facts, could a reasonable officer conclude that Mr. Graham had committed a crime. If so, the officer could stop or seize him – and use reasonable force to do so. Tim: And with facts to justify the stop, the officer can also hold a suspect for a reasonable period of time to confirm or deny the suspicion.Bobby: And that’s what the officer did. Officer Conner held Mr. Graham and his friend Berry for about 20 or 30 minutes, a reasonable period of time for a backup officer to go back to the convenience store and see if the store was robbed.Tim: Now, Officer Conner could also order Mr. Graham and his friend to remain in the car. Bobby: And Mr. Graham disobeyed that order. Mr. Graham got out the car and ran around it. Officer Conner also smelled an odor on Mr. Graham’s breath that Conner believed was alcohol. (Incidentally, a diabetic’s breath may smell sweet, or similar to alcohol.) Tim: Police statistics have stated that as many as 80% of the assaults on police officers are by suspects under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Bobby: With those facts, Officer Conner could use reasonable force to control Mr. Graham. Conner grabbed Mr. Graham, pushed him against the car, and handcuffed him. Tim: So, you be the judge. Was the INITIAL stop reasonable? In other words, could a reasonable officer on the scene believe that Mr. Graham committed a crime at the convenience store? And, could the officer hold Graham for a reasonable time for backup to check out the convenience store? Based on the facts that I’ve presented, I think so. Bobby: And what about the handcuffing. Could a reasonable officer on the scene believe that grabbing and handcuffing Graham was reasonable, after Conner ordered Graham to remain in the car and Graham jumped out? I think so. Let’s look at some factors to consider:• The officer had facts to believe the suspect committed a crime – maybe larceny or even robbery.• When Graham jumped out of the car, the officer had facts to believe that Graham was a threat to the officer.

Tim: Look at some additional factors:• Consider the number of suspects and number of officers at the scene.• Consider the fact that Officer Conner smelled what he believed was alcohol on Graham’s breath.Tim: Bobby, let’s talk about a couple of myths. Does an officer need PC to arrest a suspect before the officer can use handcuffs? Bobby: No. I’ve heard people say that putting handcuffs on a suspect automatically turns a seizure into an arrest. That’s not true. Handcuffing someone is a seizure. And, the seizure must be reasonable. Handcuffs, alone, will not convert a seizure into an arrest requiring PC.Tim: What if a police officer points a weapon at someone. Does an officer need PC to pull his weapon?Bobby: That’s another myth. Pointing a weapon at someone is a seizure, assuming the suspect stops and submits to the officer’s control. The seizure has to be reasonable. Many times officers will pull their weapons when they have a reasonable suspicion (NOT PC) that someone is armed and dangerous.Tim: Bobby, was Mr. Graham actually a diabetic? In other words, when Mr. Graham told Officer Conner that he was simply suffering from an insulin reaction and that he needed the Orange juice to counteract the reaction, was he telling the truth?Bobby: Yes; Mr. Graham was telling the truth. Mr. Graham was actually a good guy. However, we don’t judge the officer based on what he learns after the fact.Tim: I’ve had students argue in class that if they were the officer on the scene, they would have looked at Mr. Graham’s medical card -- indicating that he was a diabetic -- and that if they saw the medical card -- they might have believed Mr. Graham’s story. That’s a subjective standard. What you would have done is subjective, and not relevant. The issue is whether a reasonable officer on the scene COULD have believed that the force was reasonable. Bobby: That’s enough for now. We’ll see you when we come back. Next we will talk about deadly force and when it is objectively reasonable.

Bobby: Let’s move on. We’ve defined a seizure. We said that if a plaintiff sues a defendant for using excessive force, the issue in the case is whether the force was objectively reasonable. That’s from the Supreme Court case, Graham v. Connor. The Supreme Court told us that a seizure under the Fourth Amendment must be objectively reasonable. That is the key to the Fourth Amendment -- reasonableness. Tim: Did the Court say we had to be perfect, Bobby?Bobby: No; we know better than that. None of us are perfect. The force must be reasonable. The Court acknowledged that seizures are made under circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. The Court will not require us to be perfect; just reasonable.Tim: And just how is a court supposed to make that determination?Bobby: By examining the totality of the facts and circumstances. If a plaintiff sues a defendant police officer for excessive force, the court must look at all the facts. It will examine the facts presented by the plaintiff. It will consider the facts presented by the defendant officer. The issue will be whether based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, the force was reasonable. Tim: The court recognized that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. So, proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each case. Bobby, you said objective reasonableness. Explain that.Bobby: The court looks at the facts through the eyes of an objectively reasonable officer. Could a reasonable officer find that the force used was reasonable, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. An objective standard is based on fact.

Situation: The man peering into your window is fully masked and dressed like a ninja. You confront him and he spins toward you with his hand rising as if to shoot.

Lesson: You do the right thing, yet still get indicted. The key to your survival -- an attorney with a sense of justice and an understanding of the dynamics of deadly force.

January 10, 1995

Nighttime, shortly after nine in Anchorage, Alaska. The brief span of winter daylight has fled. In the pitch dark the temperature drops to 15 degrees below zero.

A dark-clad figure stealthily enters the outside storm door of a modest mobile home parked on the city's edge. The neighborhood has become increasingly dangerous. This particular home was already burglarized once; the damage done to the door so extensive it needed new locks.

The figure stands inside the room known in the northlands as an Arctic entry, a buffer zone between the frigid outdoors and a house, similar to a farm's mud-room. He sees boots and heavy outer garments, and up the stairs, a laundry room and the front door of the house. If he reads the sign hanging in the house that reads "Burglars Beware," he takes no notice.

With a full ski mask hiding his face, he quietly climbs the stairs. Outside the front door, he sees the lights switched on and the occupants inside, including the object of his intentions. Nervous, he waits silently, trying to calm himself before doing what he has come here to do.

The Guy's Got a Gun -- I'm Dead

The trailer is the home of Cloudia Logan, her boyfriend Robert Bauthues and Cloudia's attractive teenage granddaughter Michelle. Bob Bauthues (pronounced "Buh-thooz") is in his early seventies. Serving his country in war left him almost completely deaf. His career as a truck driver behind him, he lives unpretentiously, a proud law-abiding citizen. Yet, the neighborhood's rampant crime concerns him and Cloudia. Anchorage Daily News columnist Mike Doogan noted in 1993 the neighborhood" ... had a crime story on the front page of the Metro section three out of every four days."

Anchorage's Police Department is one of the country's best, but it doesn't have enough cops. Roughly 260 officers serve a thousand times that many citizens within sprawling city limits that stretch more than 90 miles from border to border. Response time cannot always be as quick as the officers would like. Bob bought a couple of dogs for security and, since the burglary, made sure his handgun rested, accessible, in his bedroom drawer.

He and Cloudia sit in the small living room, reading and watching television. Young Michelie rushes in. While coming out of the bathroom, she tells her grandmother, urgently, that a masked man dressed in black stood at the inner door peering through the window.

Bob reacts. Even with hearing aids he is too deaf to communicate with police dispatchers over the phone. He tells Cloudia to call 911, and then makes his way to the bedroom and opens a drawer. His gun is a Ruger Blackhawk old model single action, clean, with a pristine bore, bearing a few rust spots from hard use in the Alaskan elements. It is loaded with Remington's .357 Magnum cartridge that shoots three triple-ought buckshot pellets. Holding the revolver in his right hand, Bauthues opens the door with his left.

The figure turns and bolts toward the stairs. Bob Bauthues shouts either "Halt" or "Stop," with the big Ruger's 6.5-inch barrel pointed at the lower part of the intruder's body. If Bob shoots, he wants to stop, not kill.

The figure spins toward him suddenly and Bob Bauthues sees two things in rapid succession. One is a faceless mask staring at him impassively, without emotion, without care. The other is the man's right hand, flashing upward towards Bob in the classic movement of draw and fire.

In that split instant, Robert Bauthues thinks: "The guy's got a gun. I'm dead!" He pulls the trigger and the blast and the orange flash of the .357 Magnum fill the small entryway. The figure jackknifes and Bauthues sees that the man holds no weapon while he clutches himself between the legs with both hands. The threat of danger to himself and his loved ones is over, but Bauthues' troubles have just begun.

Alaska vs. Bauthues

Anchorage Police arrive quickly. The intruder sat in a chair, crying and holding himself. He is a juvenile who lived nearby, aged 14. He stood at the entryway working up his courage before knocking on the door and then asking to talk with the pretty, older Michelle. He is unarmed. He does not say why he spun toward Bauthues, his hand flashing upward like the quick draw of a pistol. He wore the full-face ski mask, he said, because he was snowboarding in the sub-zero cold.

The boy went to the hospital, where trauma surgeons had both good and bad news. The youth would live. But those three fast-moving .36 caliber lead balls had centered on the boy's genitals and done considerable damage. One testicle was destroyed. Two projectiles tore through the penis, causing severe damage. It was uncertain, the doctors said, whether normal function would resume. Time would tell.

Anchorage's District Attorney works for Alaska's Department of Law. The district attorney takes orders from the attorney general, the attorney general takes orders from the governor, and the governor at the time was not what anyone would call pro-gun. In this shooting, the powers-that-be apparently saw only a paranoid old man who inflicted the most horrible injury imaginable on a mere boy who had done him no harm. The case was immediately submitted to the grand jury.

The grand jury did not hear from Bob Bauthues. Working solely with what the prosecutor gave them, they indicted Bauthues for Assault in the First Degree. Under Alaska law, a conviction for this serious felony carries a minimum mandatory penalty of eight years incarceration. If he was not acquitted, it was safe to assume Bauthues would die in prison.

Bauthues found his way to attorney Wayne Anthony Ross. A member of the National Rifle Association's board of directors since 1980, Ross is a prominent pro-gun figure throughout Alaska. He provided a sympathetic ear. He knew he would never be paid a fee commensurate with the work the case required.

"When I was young, my father told me to be kind to old guys because with God's help, I might be one someday," Ross explains now. "Basically, it was pro bono, as the bill will never be paid. But it was a battle that had to be fought."

Some say it's more than coincidence that Wayne Anthony Ross's initials spell WAR.

Double Victims

Wayne called me and filled me in. I could see it was a tragedy for the boy and his family, but that didn't make Bob Bauthues a felon. Whereas something in American values seems to say, "If there is a victim, there must be a villain," this, I felt, was a matter of two victims.

The shooting of the juvenile was a classic example of what is called a furtive movement shooting. At law, the furtive movement -- a movement consistent with reaching for a weapon, but not reasonably consistent with anything else under the circumstances -- creates the reasonable belief that an opponent is armed.

A furtive movement does not justify deadly force; it must be taken in context with the prevailing circumstances. In this case, the appearance of a masked man entering the house and peering through the door without announcing himself had created what most people would consider a reasonable and prudent belief that he was someone dangerous to the occupants, dangerous enough to warrant those occupants arming themselves with a handgun.

Bauthues hadn't shot him for wearing a mask, nor for peering through the window, nor for fleeing despite his lawful command to stop or halt. It was only after a person doing a perfect imitation of a masked criminal spun on him and did another perfect imitation, to wit someone going for a gun, that the householder fired the fateful shot.

After reviewing the complete discovery file, I agreed with Ross that Bauthues was blameless under the circumstances. If the boy had donned a moose suit and moose antlers during moose season, and gone sniffing around the moose hunters' camp, it would not have been negligent for moose hunters to shoot him. It was simply a human tragedy, a predictable mistake, caused by a young person with limited life experience who did not think about what he was doing.

SNIP______________________________________________________

Why couldn't Bauthues have waited to be sure the juvenile had a gun? Once the young man's movement mimicked drawing a gun and pointing it at Bauthues, no waiting time existed. The draw to the shot takes only a small fraction of a second. I explained if you wait to see the gun, particularly in imperfect light, you'll probably see what comes out of it.

I'm still waiting for your point.... No one disagrees "that force must be reasonable". Or that an "objective standard is based on fact."

And if the facts show that force was unreasonable, well.....

As for your Bauthues example, I'm also missing your point. It looked like a home invasion situation; the law is different and gives greater leeway. Still, Bauthues was arrested. He spent a fortune on his criminal defense and/or time was donated, and in the end he pleaded out to a lessor crime. And wait to hear what he will spend on his civil lawsuit defense; I bet he will lose and pay the big bucks therefore losing his home, savings, etc.. It doesn't sound like an outcome I would like.

As for Ramos, The OCDA assumed the investigation into the death of Thomas on July 7, 2011. A team of six full-time OCDA Investigators and one Supervising Investigator has been assigned to this case. Approximately 12 additional OCDA Investigators, trained in custodial death investigations, provided assistance as needed. Senior Assistant District Attorney Jim Tanizaki, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Moore, and other senior OCDA managers provided legal analysis and direction in the investigation.

It's easy for officers to fall into complacency and get lazy, and laziness can get you killed.

September 15, 2011 | by Howard Webb

An officer was shot in the head and killed by a pedestrian he had stopped for routine questioning. It was late in the afternoon when the officer pulled alongside a man and began to ask him a question. A moment later, the man took a step back, pulled out a handgun, and fired three shots at the officer at nearly point-blank range. "The shooting happened so suddenly that the officer did not have time to draw his weapon. That's how quickly the whole thing occurred," a local prosecutor said, calling the attack "an execution-style killing."

You may have been trained to sit behind the steering wheel to check a driver's status, check for warrants, or operate your computer. You may even have placed a driver in your patrol car's passenger seat while you wrote the citation. If you have developed any or all of these bad officer safety habits, reevaluate your traffic stop tactics.

Sure, these bad habits have not killed you...yet. But as several officers have found out too late, they can be fatal.

One sunny afternoon, an officer stopped a vehicle for speeding. The vehicle contained the driver and two passengers. As the officer sat behind his patrol car's steering wheel to check the driver's DMV status and run the passengers for warrants on the computer, a passenger exited the suspect vehicle, walked back to the patrol car, and shot and killed the officer. When the killer was arrested, he confessed that the officer was completely unaware of his presence when he shot the officer in the head.

In a similar incident, a deputy stopped a vehicle for speeding. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the deputy, the driver was wanted for a shooting spree that had occurred a few hours prior in a town several hundred miles away. As the deputy sat behind the steering wheel of his patrol car to check the driver's status, the driver exited his vehicle and shot the deputy through the windshield multiple times. By the grace of God, the deputy's soft body armor stopped the bullets. With the deputy stunned from the blunt trauma of the bullets' impact, the driver was able to return to his vehicle and escape.

Meaningless Habits

Adopting and deploying tactics without first contemplating their legitimacy or evaluating their effectiveness can get you killed.

Let me give you a scenario: You see me standing on a street corner with my hands in my pockets and you think that I look suspicious. When you contact me, what is the first thing you ask me to do?

I have given this scenario to thousands of officers who have attended my training classes and instructor courses. Without exception, the officers answer: "Show me your hands." At which point, I pull a small training pistol from my pocket and point it at the officers. Their response is a wide-eyed "Oh shit" look on their faces.

We don't know the facts yet, do we? A press release isn't a discovery file. You do not have any law enforcement experience or training and have nothing but press hype to go on.

Maybe "We" don't know all the facts, but "A team of six full-time OCDA Investigators and one Supervising Investigator has been assigned to this case. Approximately 12 additional OCDA Investigators, trained in custodial death investigations, provided assistance as needed" have seen/wrote the the discovery file.

It seems the DA based upon their report thought there were enough "facts" to indict for Murder 2. Does that speak to you a little?

And can you guess how many millions of tax payer's dollars will be paid out because of Ramos? Bad apples belong in the garbage.

So the group is breaking that silence, with instruments of percussion serving as instruments of change. The banging of pots and pans is a practice that started in Latin America and spread to other countries. They're the tools women have in their kitchens, and they're what they use when they want to make some noise protesting domestic violence.

The noise created by the 150 protestors was loud enough to attract onlookers, but not too loud to warrant police interference. With no one home at the residence where the alleged rape reportedly occurred, the only thing to do was post signs on the house, and hope the message reverberates.

Events are planned every day this week at the university, including a "Take Back the Night" rally Wednesday night to honor survivors.

The lacrosse team was forced to forfeit two games because of the controversy. Fans showed up for Saturday's game and found out it was forfeited, along with Tuesday's match. They were also greeted by protesters, carrying signs that said "Don't be a fan of rapists."

The results of these studies, taken together, reveal several crucial points:1. Contrary to much popular opinion, average people exhibited extreme difficulty indistinguishing a handgun from an innocuous object such as a power tool.2. This difficulty was observed even under ideal viewing conditions, far superior to those inactual crime situations.3. Average people indicated an overwhelmingly strong tendency to shoot, or at least to decideto shoot, an armed perpetrator themselves if given the opportunity, and did so at the samelevels even if the perpetrator was “armed” only with a power tool which was evidentlyreadily mistaken for a weapon.4. However, even though the vast majority of the civilian respondents indicated a readiness toshoot the perpetrator themselves, only about 1 person in 10 felt it would be appropriate forthe police to do so under the same circumstances.

These results reveal a substantial disparity between the actions, attitudes, and beliefs of typicaladults and the practical realities of police work in violent situations. It is suggested, as a matterfor further research, that much of this disparity may lie in public perceptions garnered frompopular media depictions of crime and police work, and probably from unrealistic expectationsconcerning the workings and capabilities of the human nervous system in terms of suchprocessing tasks as distinguishing actual firearms from, for example, screwdrivers. A substantialbody of future research will be needed to address the underlying mechanisms and theramifications of the findings obtained in these initial studies. For the present, however, it is clearthat these effects assume special significance for the real-world courtroom circumstances underwhich actual witnesses, jurors, and public constituencies consider and testify as to the actions oflaw enforcement personnel in application to real-world violent crime.